Joanne Vinke-de Kruijf, MSc
Department of Water Engineering and Management
Twente Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development
October 2009
CE&M research report 2009R-004/WEM-004
ISSN 1568-4652
Dutch expertise in Romanian
water projects
Retrospective case study ‘Teleorman Flood Risk
Management Pilot Project’
Management Summary
Since 2005, the Province of Overijssel is cooperating with Teleorman County – located in the South of Romania – in the field of water management. This cooperation would initially focus on drinking water and wastewater. However, after Teleorman County was hit by three severe floods in 2005, Overijssel decided to initiate the ‘Teleorman Flood Risk Management Pilot Project’ (October 2006 – June 2009). Financial support for the project is provided by a Flood Fund established by the Province and several Water Boards and by the Dutch programme ‘Partners for Water’. The project has been studied within the context of a PhD research. This PhD research includes the analysis of several Dutch‐Romanian projects in the field of water management.
For this case study, data was gathered through document analysis and semi‐structured interviews in the first part of 2009. In this period, most project activities were already completed. Hence, the case study has been undertaken in retrospective. Starting‐point in the case study analysis is that water projects are ‘processes of social interaction’ in which various actors jointly solve a complex, unstructured problem. The analysis comprises: (1) an analysis of the process course and its outcomes; and (2) an actor centred analysis focusing on the motivations, cognitions and resources of actors involved. Particular attention is paid to the role of expertise, which is one of the resources of actors involved.
The analysis of the process course and its outcomes shows that the outcomes of several project components deviate from the initial work plan. One adjustment is that it was agreed to add several supplementary activities to the project. This considerably enlarged the number of interactive activities. Another adjustment is that the scope of the flood risk management plan was downscaled. In addition, the project took longer than planned; its end date was postponed from the end 2007 to June 2009. Factors that caused this delay relate to internal project organization (distribution of roles and responsibilities) and to institutional arrangements (permits and licences). The project was carried out by a team consisting of a mix of seven Romanian and Dutch organizations. This team was supported by a Steering Committee, an Advisory Board and various Romanian beneficiary organizations. The Steering Committee fulfilled an important role in shaping the demonstration project and the supplementary activities.
Interviews with several key stakeholders reveal that the cooperation between various project participants developed positively. Even though some Romanian actors were sceptical in the beginning, they are all positive about the project results. Their motive to participate in the project was in gaining access to Dutch expertise and money. The motivation of Dutch actors to participate is formed by a mix of economic and altruistic reasons. Conflicts of interests never emerged during Overijssel‐Teleorman cooperation projects and did also not emerge during this project. As regards cognitions, it is observed that flood risk problems never received priority in Teleorman. Water managers rather focused on drought related problems as they were more frequent and significant. During the project, it was expressed that it was desirable that to pay attention to drought related problems as well. This was done in the form of a supplementary activity, but did not result in a concrete reduction of these problems. Besides the supplementary activities, the demonstration project also had to be shaped during the project. Boundary conditions for the design were the application of geo‐textile and the available budget. The implemented solution was innovative and would never have been applied if Dutch experts would not have been involved. This shows that Romanian actors learnt about new solutions. In addition, they also gained new insights in Dutch expertise. In analyzing resources, a distinction is made between the following resources: financial, institutional, human and information. Financial resources were only provided by Dutch
organizations. Without these resources it would have been unlikely that, for example, the dam in Botoroaga would have been repaired by now (demonstration project). As regards institutional resources, the Romanian actors played a key role in arranging all necessary permits and licenses. Organization and information was taken care of by a mix of Dutch and Romanian stakeholders. As both Romanian and Dutch actors could not provide all necessary resources, they were mutually dependent on each other.
Expertise can be provided by relative ‘insiders’ (Romanian stakeholders in this case) and outsiders (Dutch experts in this case). In analyzing the role of expertise, a distinction has been made between expertise regarding the content, the process and the network. As regards the content of the project, Dutch expertise was decisive in arriving at an innovative solution for repairing the Botoroaga dam. Involvement of Romanian actors in designing this solution was crucial in creating support. With the development of flood risk maps there was also very limited experience among Romanian stakeholders. Hence, Dutch experts also played an important role in developing these. At the project start, the (Dutch) project leader had only limited knowledge about the local problem formulations, preferences, qualities and social relations. During the project, new insights were gathered concerning these aspects. However, the project team had only limited possibilities to use these insights to adjust the project. Concerning the management of the process and the network, the project leader(s) played a key role. Although their knowledge about the local situation was limited, he managed to involve the right actors and to manage the process successfully. What certainly played a role is that Overijssel and Teleorman were already cooperating and that they received support from various Romanian actors.
Based on this case study it is concluded that – in addition to an actors own objectives, external pressure and self‐effectiveness assessment – ‘social relations’ may also be regarded as a source of motivation. The development of relations and trust, institutional learning, also appeared to influence the application of Dutch expertise. More broadly speaking, collective learning processes are crucial in solving water problems. During this project, there were only limited possibilities for joint problem‐ solving as most project components were predefined. Thus, there were not many opportunities to adjust the project based on what was learnt. Analysis of resources highlights that dependency relations exist between both Dutch and Romanian actors. Dutch experts did not have the context‐ specific expertise needed to successfully complete the project. The added value of Dutch experts was in providing more general knowledge (models and methods), which was innovative and integrated various project aspects.
It is recommended to design Dutch‐Romanian projects as learning‐oriented projects. This implies that there should be opportunities to learn (communication and interaction, a participatory setting) and that the project itself should be flexible (adaptive management).
Samenvatting (in Dutch)
Sinds 2005 werkt de provincie Overijssel op het gebied van water management samen met de Zuid‐ Roemeense district Teleorman. Deze samenwerking zou zich in eerste instantie richten op drinkwater en afvalwater. Nadat Teleorman district in 2005 werd getroffen door drie hevige overstromingen, besloot de provincie Overijssel om het project ‘Teleorman Overstromingsrisico’s Pilot Project’ op te starten. Het project wordt financieel ondersteunt door een ‘overstromingsfonds’ met bijdragen van de provincie en verschillende waterschappen en door het programma ‘Partners voor Water’. In het kader van een promotieonderzoek – waarin verschillende Nederlands‐ Roemeense projecten worden bestudeerd – is ook dit project geanalyseerd.
Data voor deze case studie is verzameld door het bestuderen van documenten en semigestructureerde interviews in het begin van 2009. Aangezien de meeste projectactiviteiten in deze periode al waren afgerond, gaat het om een case studie in retrospectief. Uitgangspunt bij het analyseren van de case studie is dat waterprojecten kunnen worden beschouwd als processen van sociale interactie waarin actoren gezamenlijk een complex, ongestructureerd probleem oplossen. Deze analyse omvat (1) een analyse van het verloop en de uitkomsten van het proces; en (2) een analyse van de motivaties, cognities en hulpbronnen van de betrokken actoren. Aandacht is in het bijzonder besteedt aan de rol van expertise, wat één van de hulpbronnen van betrokken actoren is.
De analyse van het verloop en de uitkomsten van het proces laat zien dat de uitkomst van verschillende projectonderdelen afwijkt van het initiële werkplan. Eén van de aanpassingen is dat er besloten is om verschillende aanvullende activiteiten toe te voegen aan het project. Dit heeft het aantal interactieve bijeenkomsten aanzienlijk doen toenemen. Ook de omvang van het overstromingsrisicoplan is verkleint. Hiernaast heeft de uitvoering van het project langer geduurd dan gepland: de einddatum is verschoven van eind 2007 naar juni 2009. Factoren die deze vertraging hebben veroorzaakt zijn gerelateerd aan interne project organisatie (de verdeling van rollen en verantwoordelijkheden) en institutionele regelingen (vergunningen). Het project is uitgevoerd door een projectteam bestaande uit een mix van zeven Nederlandse en Roemeense organisaties. Dit projectteam is ondersteunt door een stuurgroep, een adviesgroep en verschillende Roemeense begunstigden. De stuurgroep heeft een belangrijke rol vervult in het vormgeven van het demonstratieproject en de aanvullende activiteiten.
Uit interviews met verschillende betrokkenen blijkt dat de samenwerking tussen verschillende projectdeelnemers zeer positief is verlopen. Hoewel sommige Roemeense actoren bij de projectaanvang sceptisch waren, is iedereen positief over de uitkomsten van het project. De motivatie van deze Roemeense actoren om deel te nemen aan het project was gerelateerd aan het verkrijgen van toegang tot zowel Nederland geld als expertise. De motivatie van Nederlandse actoren om deel te nemen heeft zowel van economische als van altruïstische aard. Conflicterende belangen hebben nooit een rol gespeeld in de samenwerking tussen Overijssel en Teleorman en speelden ook in dit project geen rol. Wat betreft de cognities van actoren is geobserveerd dat het bestrijden van overstromingen nooit prioriteit heeft gekregen in Teleorman. Watermanagers hebben voorheen vooral aandacht besteed aan het bestrijden van droogteproblemen, aangezien deze van meer betekenis waren en vaker voorkwamen. Tijdens het project is de wens ook uitgesproken om ook aandacht te besteden aan droogteproblemen in het gebied. Hier is vervolgens ook aandacht aan besteed in de aanvullende activiteiten. Dit heeft echter niet geresulteerd in een concrete afname van droogte gerelateerde problemen in de regio. Tijdens het project moest ook nog een nadere invulling worden gegeven aan het demonstratieproject. Randvoorwaarden voor dit projectonderdeel waren de toepassing van geotextiel en het beschikbare budget. De geïmplementeerde oplossing was
innovatief in Roemenie en zou nooit zijn toegepast als Nederlandse experts niet bij het project betrokken waren geweest. Roemeense actoren hebben dus geleerd over nieuwe oplossingen. Hiernaast heeft men ook meer inzicht gekregen in de rol die Nederlandse expertise in Roemenie kan spelen. In de analyse van de hulpbronnen is onderscheid gemaakt tussen de volgende hulpbronnen: financieel, institutioneel, personeel en informatie. Financiële hulpbronnen zijn uitsluitend bijgedragen door Nederlandse organisaties. Het is onwaarschijnlijk dat de Botoroaga dam inmiddels zou zijn gerepareerd (het demonstratie project). In het regelen van benodigde vergunningen hebben Roemeense actoren een belangrijke rol gespeeld. De organisatie van het proces en het vergaren van data en informatie is verzorgd door zowel Nederlandse als Roemeense actors. Aangezien beide actoren niet alle benodigde hulpbronnen tot hun beschikking hadden was er sprake van een wederzijdse afhankelijkheid.
Expertise kan worden bijgedragen door relatieve ‘insiders’ (Roemenen in dit geval) and door relatieve ‘buitenstaanders’ (Nederlandse experts in dit geval). In het bestuderen van de rol van expertise is een onderscheid gemaakt tussen expertise die betrekking heeft op de inhoud, het proces en het netwerk. Inhoudelijk heeft Nederlandse expertise een doorslaggevende rol gespeeld in het formuleren van een innovatieve oplossing om de dam in Botoroaga te repareren. Het betrekken van Roemeense actoren in het ontwerp proces was cruciaal om draagvlak te creëren voor deze oplossing. In het ontwikkelen van overstromingsrisicokaarten hadden Roemenen vrijwel geen ervaring. Nederlandse experts hebben ook hierin een belangrijke rol gespeeld. Aan het begin van het project hadden de Nederlandse experts vrijwel geen kennis van de lokale problemen, voorkeuren, kwaliteiten en sociale relaties. Deze kennis is tijdens het project verder ontwikkeld. De mogelijkheid om op basis van deze inzichten het project aan te passen waren echter maar beperkt aanwezig. In het managen van het proces en het netwerk heeft de projectleider een sleutelrol vervuld. Hoewel zijn kennis van de lokale situatie beperkt was, is hij er toch in geslaagd om de juiste actoren te betrekken en het project succesvol te managen. Wat zeker een rol heeft gespeeld is dat Overijssel en Teleorman al samenwerkten en dat de projectleider is ondersteunt door verschillende Roemeense actoren. Op basis van deze case studie wordt geconcludeerd dat – in aanvulling op de eigen doelstellingen, externe druk en zelfeffectiviteit – ‘sociale relaties’ ook kunnen worden beschouwd als een bron van motivatie. De ontwikkeling van relaties en vertrouwen, institutioneel leren, blijkt ook van invloed te zijn op de toepassing van Nederlandse expertise. In het algemeen spelen collectieve leerprocessen een cruciale rol in het oplossen van waterproblemen. Tijdens dit project waren de mogelijkheden om gezamenlijk een probleem op te lossen maar beperkt aanwezig, omdat de meeste projectonderdelen al afgebakend waren. Er waren dus weinig mogelijkheden om het project aan te passen op basis van wat was geleerd. Analyse van de hulbronnen laat zien dat er relaties van onderlinge afhankelijkheid bestonden tussen zowel Nederlandse en Roemeense actoren. Nederlandse experts hadden niet de contextspecifieke kennis die nodig was om het project succesvol af te ronden. De toegevoegde waarde van Nederlandse experts was dat ze algemene kennis (modellen en methoden) hebben, die innovatief is en verschillende project aspecten integreert.
Aanbevolen wordt om Nederlands‐Roemeense projecten te ontwerpen als ‘op leren georiënteerde’ processen. Dit houdt in dat er ruimte moet zijn om te leren (communicatie en interactie, een participatieve setting) en dat het project zelf flexibel moet zijn (adaptief management).
Preface
This report is part of the PhD research ‘Applying Dutch expertise abroad: How to contribute effectively in the Romanian context?’ This research started on the 1st of September 2008 and will be completed within four years. As part of this research, we intend to analyze at least two ongoing projects and several completed projects. This report presents the case study of an (almost) completed project. This report has been written within the context of the overall PhD project. It has been written specifically for the Province of Overijssel. However, it also aims to inform other researchers and practitioners, including other persons involved in Dutch‐Romanian water projects.
This research is supported by the Institute for Governance Studies at the University of Twente, the Province of Overijssel and Haskoning Romania. Supervision is provided by the Water Engineering and Management (WEM) Department and the Centre for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy (CSTM). The following persons are involved as supervisor: ‐ Prof. Dr. Ir. S.J.M.H. Hulscher, Professor in Water Management (WEM) ‐ Prof. Dr. J. Th. A. Bressers, Professor of Policy Studies and Environmental Policy (CSTM) ‐ Dr. ir. D.C.M. Augustijn, Associate professor in Environmental Management (WEM) ‐ Dr. ir. V. Dinica, Senior Researcher (CSTM), until the 1st of September 2009
We thank representatives from Teleorman County Council, the Water Management Centre, Apele Romane, Royal Haskoning and the Province of Overijssel for giving us the opportunity to interview them. In particular, we thank the project leader Alex Hooijer and Irina Feleaga of Teleorman County for their assistance in providing documents and arranging interviews.
In this report, we present a reconstruction of the course and outcomes of a Dutch‐Romanian project. In preparing the final version of this report, we received useful comments of various readers, for which we thank them. We hope that you enjoy reading this report and that it provides you with new insights in the export of Dutch water management and in Dutch‐Romanian projects in particular. Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf (joanne.vinke@utwente.nl) Bucharest, 29 September 2009
Table of contents
Management Summary ...1 Samenvatting (in Dutch) ... 3 Preface ...5 Table of contents ...6 List of abbreviations...7 1 Introduction ...8 1.1 Research context...8 1.2 Research strategy...9 1.3 Research process ...9 1.4 Analytical framework ...10 1.5 Outline...12 2 Project course and its outcomes...13 2.1 Background and history ...13 2.2 Evolution of project components ...16 2.3 Process: actors and interaction...19 2.4 Synthesis: project course and its outcomes ...23 3 Characteristics and expertise of actors involved ...24 3.1 Motivations: formulation of a motivating goal...24 3.2 Cognitions: development of ‘negotiated knowledge’...27 3.3 Capacity and power: mobilization of resources...30 3.4 Expertise regarding content, process and networks ...32 4 Results and discussion ...35 4.1 The development and role of motivations, cognitions and resources ...35 4.2 Role of (Dutch) expertise ...38 4.3 Contextual factors...39 4.4 Design and evaluation of water projects ...39 5 Conclusions and recommendations...41 5.1 Problem solving in Dutch‐Romanian water projects ...41 5.2 Recommendations for Dutch‐Romanian projects ...42 References ...43 Annex A – List of interviews and project documents ...45List of abbreviations
The English abbreviations used in this report are summarized below. Romanian or Dutch synonyms are provided in italic. CC County Council (Consiliul Judetean) EU European Union EVD (Dutch) Agency for International Business and Cooperation G‐CC Giurgiu County Council (Consiliul Judetean Giurgiu) MoE Ministry of Environment (Ministerul Mediului) NAAR National Administration “Romanian Waters” (Administratia Nationala “Apele Române”) NIHWM National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management (Institutul National de Hidrologie si Gospodarire a Apelor) NWP Netherlands Water Partnership H‐NL Haskoning Netherlands, a company of Royal Haskoning PO Province of Overijssel (Provincie Overijssel) SC Steering Committee T‐CC Teleorman County Council (Consiliul Judetean Teleorman)TUCB Technical University of Construction Bucharest (Universitatii Tehnice de Constructii Bucuresti) T‐WMS Teleorman Water Management System (Teleorman Sistemul de Gospodărire a Apelor) WD Water Directorate (Directia Apelor) WD‐AV Water Directorate Arges‐Vedea (Directia Apelor Arges‐Vedea) WMC Water Management Centre (Centrul de Management al Apei) WMS Water management System (Sistemul de Gospodărire a Apelor)
1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the scope, strategy and methods, theoretical basis and contents of this report. This report is part of a four year PhD research, section Error! Reference source not found. explains how this case study report relates to this research. The second section describes the basic strategy used to gather and analyze data. Section 1.3 explains how the actual process of doing research developed for this case study. Subsequently, section 1.4 describes the analytical framework that guides the case study analysis. The last section provides an outline of the report.
1.1 Research context
This case study report is part of a PhD research at the University of Twente. The overall objective of this research is: To provide insights in the contribution of Dutch expertise to the solving of water management problems in transition countries, such as Romania, by investigating – for several Dutch Romanian case study projects – the motivation, cognitions and resources (including Dutch expertise) of actors involved, and relevant contextual factors.The basic theoretical framework used to analyze Dutch‐Romanian projects is presented in section 1.4. This section is limited to the definition of the main concepts used throughout this report. Each of them is discussed in more detail in an earlier publication (Vinke‐de Kruijf 2009). We define problem solving as an interactive process through which various actors arrive at a shared problem‐ solution combination. Problem solving takes place within a wider, structural and specific context, but the evolution and outcomes of problem solving basically result from the dynamic interaction between actors’ resources, cognitions and motives. One of the resources involved in Dutch‐Romanian projects is Dutch expertise. Expertise is a great skill or knowledge in a particular field, which may relate to the content, the process or the network. Expertise is also a resource of actors involved and thus a source of capacity and power. The empirical part of this PhD research focuses on the analysis of several Dutch‐Romanian projects and of Romania’s wider and institutional context. Some of these Dutch‐Romanian projects are studied in retrospective (completed projects) and some through real‐time observations (ongoing projects). Although ‘Teleorman Flood Risk Management Project’ was not completely finished at the time of our analysis – a dam was still under construction – this analysis is regarded to be a retrospective study as all other activities were already completed in June 2008. The advantage of analyzing a case study in retrospective is that the overall course and outcomes of the project are already known. However, this prior knowledge may also bias a study and it does not allow us to observe how the process actually unfolds (Van de Ven 2007). As retrospective and real‐time case studies may provide complementary insights, this PhD research is based on a combination of both types of studies. Whereas the real‐time studies will provide more insights in learning processes, the retrospective case studies can provide more insight which projects were successful and why. In this retrospective case study, we intend to analyze the course and outcomes of Dutch‐Romanian projects, and the contribution of Dutch expertise in particular. The case study analyses includes: (1) a description of the course and outcomes of the project; and (2) an analysis of the motivation, cognitions and resources of actors involved. As this Dutch‐Romanian project is part of a cooperation programme between the Province of Overijssel and Teleorman County, this report also pays attention to this cooperation. During subsequent phases of the PhD research, this project will also be compared with other Dutch‐Romanian projects.
1.2 Research strategy
The analysis of the retrospective and real‐time cases is based on a qualitative case study research strategy. Whether retrospective studies are examples of ‘case studies’ is a matter of definition. As they do not include the observation of contemporary events, some scholars rather call them histories (Yin 2009). Other definitions of ‘case studies’ also include retrospective studies. For example, the definition that a case study is “the intensive study of a single case for the purpose of understanding a larger class of similar units (a population of cases)” (Gerring 2006). In any case, triangulation, i.e. the use of multiple sources of evidence, is an important aspect to create valid results (Gerring 2006; Yin 2009). In this case study, three sources of data have been used: project documents, face‐to‐face interviews in the period January ‐ May 2009, and a report by Dinica (2007). The main project documents used are: progress reports written for the funding programme ‘Partners for Water’ and the substantive reports written by project team members. The author itself carried out six interviews, two in the Netherlands and four in Romania. These interviews focused on the evolution and outcomes of the Dutch‐Romanian project. See also Annex A for more information on the interviews and project documents. The report by Dinica “An institutional analysis of water management issues in the Teleorman County, Romania” is based on research activities carried out in 2006. For this case study, the reports’ part on flood risk management has been used, which includes in‐depth face‐to‐face interviews with 16 key stakeholders and the results of 40 questionnaires that were filled out. The aim of these interviews and the questionnaire was to provide insights in the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the most important factors behind the floods in 2005.
This study aims contribute to the knowledge of Dutch experts involved in projects abroad and is thus practice‐oriented. A distinction can be made between three types of practice‐oriented research: descriptive, hypotheses‐building and hypotheses‐testing. This research is mostly descriptive; we rather aim to identify and describe variables than to provide exact descriptions of the relations between variables (Dul and Hak 2007). The used method of inquiry is referred to as abduction (and not induction or deduction). This means that the analysis is build upon a continuous interplay between defined theoretical concepts and empirical data. Three important implications of abduction are: (1) the need for a detailed, rich case description (thick description) as we do not have one plausible idea yet about important variables and causal mechanisms; (2) in generating explanations for our findings we are continuously trying to create a linkage between our analytical framework and our empirical findings; and (3) try to quantify what you can and do not ignore the potential of qualitative information (Van Maanen et al. 2007). These implications are also applied in this report, e.g. by providing an extensive project description, a separate reflection chapter, and quantifying (i.e. counting the numbers of participants).
1.3 Research process
How the process of abduction develops, thus how a research actually unfolds often remains hidden (Van Maanen et al. 2007). This section aims to reveal this aspect of doing research. As this section is written from my own personal perspective, I (the author) present this section in the first person singular.
Officially, I started working on this case study in January 2009. By then, I already had my first experiences in Teleorman (the project area); six months earlier I attended the Danube Days in the area. The Province of Overijssel invited me to participate and to present my research for various Dutch and Romanian stakeholders. During these days I already met various people whom I interviewed later for the purpose of this research. I also visited the location where project works have been implemented. Following this event, I have been occupied with writing research proposals and the development of a theoretical framework. This reading and writing, supported by experiences with doing water‐related research in the Netherlands, living in Romania and some
interviews, resulted in an initial idea of how Dutch experts may contribute to or play a role in Dutch‐ Romanian water projects. The resulting analytical framework is presented in the next section (1.4).
By the end of 2008, I was ready to start with the analysis of case studies. Case study research crucially depends on having access to case study material (Gummesson 2000). Before I started the interviews I was warned by other researchers that gaining access to relevant persons and information can be quite challenging in Romania. Fortunately this appeared not to be a problem for this case. First, I approached the project leader of Royal Haskoning for documents and for an interview. He provided me with access to case study material and we discussed the project. I also discussed the project with two persons of the Province of Overijssel. Following this, these people brought me in contact with relevant Romanian stakeholders.
All interviews were semi‐structured: I prepared a framework for the interviews in advance, but the interviews were not limited to the prepared questions. During some interviews the questions did not even appear. This was particularly the case with Romanian stakeholders, with whom I had rather informal conversations about their organizations and about the project. During such conversations we discussed questions, such as: What kind of activities is your organization involved in? How were you (and your organization) involved in the project? What did you and other stakeholders contribute to the project? How was the cooperation during the project? What was the added value of Dutch expertise? What did you learn from the project? The interviews provided many useful insights in the projects. Although I have to admit that the implementation of works (one aspect of the project) got much more attention than other project components. What possibly caused this was that this project component was still ongoing.
During the process of gathering and analyzing data, I realized that there was a need to adjust some of my initial ideas. In preparing for the interviews, I went through various project documents. My first impression was that, since the project duration was much longer than expected, it was not a very successful project. However, during the interviews I discovered that both Dutch and Romanian respondents are looking back positively on the project. This raises the question how we can actually define a ‘successful project’. I did nor explicitly predefine any evaluation yardsticks, but discovered that my analytical framework includes many assumptions about how a project develops. I will come back on this issue in the last section of the reflection chapter. Furthermore, I realized that my interpretation of Dutch expertise as one of the resources of actors involved was too limited. I realized, for example, that it does not make sense to link Dutch expertise only to resources; it is linked closely to the development of cognitions and motivations as well. This resulted in a slightly different discussion of expertise (see section 3.4). These and other reflections are elaborated further in Chapter 4.
1.4 Analytical framework
This case study report is the first in a line of multiple case studies. The analytical framework used for this study is described in more detail in a previous report (Vinke‐de Kruijf 2009). This section summarizes the framework used to study this project. Based on this study this analytical framework may be adjusted and further refined for subsequent case studies.
The focus of the adopted analytical framework is on ‘problem‐solving’. The reason for this is that water projects – like engineering projects in general – are mostly designed to solve a specific problem (Beroggi 2000). Previous research shows that often the knowledge needed to solve a water problem is uncertain and that actors involved disagree about relevant norms and values. Consequently, many water problems are not technical or knowledge problems; they are rather problems of disagreement or ambiguity. Therefore, water projects as processes of social interaction
in which various actors with diverging perceptions formulate the problem and its solutions (Hommes et al. 2009).
The adopted framework for analyzing problem solving is inspired by the Contextual Interaction Theory developed by Bressers (2004). This theory states that – although policy processes develop within a wider, structural and specific context – the evolution and outcomes of problem solving basically results from the dynamic interaction between key characteristics of actors involved. These actor characteristics and related relevant questions are (Bressers 2007; Owens 2008):
Actors’ motivation: the motivation that drives their action. How motivated were actors to participate? To what extent did the project match their goals and values? To what extent were actors limited by external factors? How did actors assess their own role in the project?
Actors’ cognitions: the information they held to be true or their perception on the problem. To what extent does the problem addressed correspond to the problems experienced by actors involved? To what extent do they trust provided information? Were there any content‐related discussions or ambiguity?
Actors’ resources: available and accessible resources which provide capacity to act and are sources of power. To what extent were all necessary resources available? How were various resources mobilized? Which contributions were made by which actors?
Previous research shows that it is useful to elaborate on actor characteristics over time and to include the role of contextual factors (Owens 2008). As a retrospective case does not allow for real‐ time observation, it is difficult to provide an in‐depth analysis how each actor characteristic developed over time. However, it does allow for a more general analysis of the project course and its outcomes. Such an analysis focuses on impasses (deadlocks or stagnations) and breakthroughs, and generated outcomes (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). How the project course and its outcomes depends on the motivation, cognitions and resources of actors involved. The ideal outcome of problem‐ solving is a joint formulation of the problems and its solutions, a problem‐solution combination (Hommes et al. 2009). Key‐questions regarding this outcome are: Was it possible to mobilize all necessary resources? Did actors arrive at an agreed upon and valid (negotiated) knowledge base? Did actors formulate a motivating goal? Of particular interest for this research is the role of (Dutch) expertise, which is one of the resources of actors involved. In solving water problems expertise about content, process and network appears to be relevant (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004; Wesselink 2007). This distinction between three types of expertise will be used to analyze the role of (Dutch) expertise in this project.
The project description also includes the role of contextual factors. A distinction can be made between three contextual layers: project‐specific, institutional and wider (Bressers 2007; Bressers and Xue 2007). This case study includes an analysis of the project‐specific context, this is the history of the project (previous decisions and plan) and specific circumstances, such as funding or relation with other cooperation projects. The project description does not include a separate analysis of the institutional and/or cultural setting. This will be part of a subsequent, separate analysis of contextual factors. The basic analytical framework of problem solving that guides the analysis of this Dutch‐ Romanian project is schematized in Figure 1.
Interactive process of problem solving
Outcomes (problem-solution combination)
‐ Motivations: a motivating goal formulated?
‐ Cognitions: negotiated knowledge base created?
‐ Capacity and power: necessary resources mobilized?
Wider context: Participation culture and experiences
Structural context: Institutional setting for problem solving
Specific context: Project ‐specific history and circumstances
Actor:
Motivation
Cognitions
Resources
Actor:
Motivation
Cognition
Resources
Expertise:
Content
Process
Networks
Expertise:
Content
Process
Networks
Figure 1 – Analytical framework: problem solving as an interactive process which is influenced by contextual factors and results in certain outcomes1.5 Outline
This chapter introduces the case study ‘Teleorman Flood Risk Management Pilot Project’. The remainder of this report further describes and analyzes this project. Chapter 2 starts with a detailed description of the project context, content and process. It describes how the project developed over time and how various actors have been involved. Chapter 3 also describes the project, but from a purely actor‐centred perspective. Our focus in this chapter is on three characteristics of actors involved: resources, cognitions and motivations. We link every characteristic also to Dutch involvement. Chapter 4 reflects on the results of this study and connects these results to theory. This report concludes with conclusions and recommendations for the Dutch water sector in Romania and the Province of Overijssel in particular. This report also contains a list of abbreviations, a list of references and one annex with a list of interviews and project documents.
2 Project course and its outcomes
This chapter describes the background, content and process of the ‘Teleorman Flood Risk Management Pilot Project’. The first section introduces the project‐specific context, including the project background and history, the. Section 2.2 describes the development of various project components. The actors involved and their interaction is described in section 2.3. This chapter concludes with a synthesis of the project course and its outcomes.
2.1 Background and history
Our case study project is part of a broader cooperation project between Teleorman County and the Province of Overijssel (PO), the Teleorman Water Project, which is described in subsection 2.1.1. The second subsection describes the background of the project itself. The project objectives are presented in the last subsection.
2.1.1 Teleorman Water Project – Overijssel
On 14 January 2005, the two (Dutch) Provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel signed a formal agreement for cooperation with the (Romanian) Counties of Teleorman and Giurgiu (see Figure 2). The counties are located south‐west of Romania’s capital Bucharest. The counties are crossed by two main rivers, the Arges and the Vedea, that flow southwards into the Danube River. The Danube forms the south‐border of both counties and the border between Romania and Bulgaria.
Figure 2 – Location of the Counties Teleorman and Giurgiu in Romania
On request of Teleorman County Council (T‐CC), the agreement explicitly states that the first joint project would focus on water management. In the same year PO and T‐CC established their first concrete cooperation project. Note that the Province of Gelderland did not have an active role in this project. The objective of the ‘Teleorman Water Project’ was:
“To improve the water systems in Teleorman County, with an emphasis on the drinking water supply, collection and processing of wastewater, and to lessen the risk of flooding”1
In addition to PO and T‐CC, five Water Boards from Eastern Netherlands, and drinking water organization Vitens, also decided to participate in the project. This enlarged cooperation was confirmed during the Danube Days in June 2005. During the course of the project, the water company Vitens withdrew (it decided to focus only on urban areas) and a sixth Water Board joined. The ‘Teleorman Water Project’ has two central working groups: a Romanian working group coordinated by the T‐CC (located in Alexandria) and a Dutch working group coordinated by PO. The project focuses in particular on the following sub‐projects: 1. Improvement of drinking water and wastewater management in urban areas 2. Improvement of drinking water and wastewater management in rural areas 3. Reduction of flood risks in Teleorman 4. Water project for young people 5. Establishment and support of a Water Management Centre (WMC) 6. Training courses in drinking water and wastewater management 7. Institutional analysis of water management in Romania 8. Work visits by politicians This report focuses on the 3rd sub‐project, reduction of flood risks. The main locations for project activities are indicated on Figure 3. This includes Alexandria (residence of T‐CC), Turnu Magurele (residence of the WMC) and Botoroaga (location of implemented works).
2.1.2 Project‐specific background
When Dutch and Romanian partners signed their cooperation agreement, they expected that their cooperation would focus on drinking water and waste water treatment. Since Teleorman and Giurgiu did not experience any serious flood during the past eighty years, floods were not regarded as a serious risk. This changed when three severe floods hit the area
between July and September 2005. These floods resulted in the inundation of 35 villages, the destruction of thousands of houses, collapsing of more than one hundred bridges and two deathly casualties. The causes of these floods are a combination of extreme precipitation and the failure of dikes and local discharge systems.
The first flood took place, just after a Dutch delegation visited the Danube Days in the area in June 2005. Upon these unexpected events, the delegation decided to raise funds for the structural protection against flooding in the region. Two provinces and five Water Boards decided to make a financial contribution to this special ‘Flood Fund’ which was managed by PO. PO also decided to involve Haskoning Netherlands (H‐NL) as a consultant in developing a flood risk management project.
1 Teleorman Water Project (Southern Romania) ‐ Overijssel. Activities Programme 2008/Comprehensive
Background Document, version 17 January 2007;
Preparations for this project started with several site visits by experts of H‐NL and water boards (one in September and two in November 2005). During these missions three flood‐affected areas were examined: Cainelui sub‐basin, Calmatiu sub‐basin and Calnistea sub‐basin. In consultation with two Romanian key stakeholders (T‐CC and local water managers), it was decided that the Calnistea basin would serve as a pilot project. The project would focus in particular on the southern part, the Lower Calnistea basin. The Calnistea river is a tributary of the Arges river and its river basin is located in the mid‐western part of Teleorman, upstream of Giurgiu2. The location of the three river basins is indicated in Figure 4.
The ‘Flood Fund’ could not cover the costs of all activities proposed under the Flood Risk Management Pilot Project. Therefore, in April 2006 a proposal was submitted to the Dutch ‘Partners for Water’ Programme. This programme is implemented by the Dutch Agency for International Business and Cooperation (EVD) and the Netherlands Water Partnership (NWP) and provides financial support for innovative water projects by
Dutch partners abroad. One of the conditions for support is that the applicant (H‐NL in this case) covers 20% of the costs, whereas Partners for Water covers the remaining 80%. In this case, it was agreed that the project team would undertake several supplementary activities, equivalent to 20% of the project costs. Some time was needed to agree upon this. Because of this the project started a few months later than intended. Initially, it would start in July 2006 and end in September 2007. In the formal agreement between H‐NL and Partners for Water, which was signed only on 15 December 2006, it was agreed to start the project on 1 October 2006 and to complete it before 31 December 2007. The main project beneficiaries are the National Administration Romanian Waters, (Apele Romane or NAAR) and T‐CC Department of International and External Cooperation.
2.1.3 Objectives
The activity programme of the “Teleorman Water Project – Overijssel” describes the objectives of the flood risk management project as follows:
Longterm goal: substantial reduction of the risk of flood damages and victims in all river basins in Teleorman and Giurgiu Counties.
2 Teleorman Water Project (Southern Romania) ‐ Overijssel. Activities Programme 2008/Comprehensive
Background Document, version 17 January 2007;
Figure 4 – River basins Arges and Vedea, with the sub‐basins Calnistea, Calmatui and Cainelui (Source: project report 1, see Annex A)
Shortterm goal (2007): execution of a pilot project in a subriver basin to discover institutional bottlenecks and opportunities, in order to develop guidelines and to carry out some effective measures in the area3.
This objective clearly distinguishes between a long‐term and a short‐term goal. The objective on the short‐term is to execute a pilot project. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the objective above, it was already decided that the pilot project would be located in the Lower Calnistea river basin. What was still unknown was where the flood related measures would be located. Within the context of Partners for Water, the project team formulated the following specific objective:
To demonstrate the Dutch capabilities in providing support to: (1) address floodrelated matters in the management of water resources in line with the proposed EU directive for Flood Risk Management and to support the development and refinement of flood risk management strategies and action plans; (2) the realisation of flood proofing measures; and (3) the modernization of institutional framework for flood and crisis management4
This objective connects the project with the implementation of the European Union (EU) Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) and the export of Dutch water management. The project proposal also expresses the ambition that the project will serve as a guide for structural and non‐structural measures for flood risk management in other parts of Romania. Spin‐offs are expected within the context of Romania’s ambitious strategy for flood protection and the EU Floods Directive. For this, the project aims in particular at the successful absorption of Dutch supplies and services in relation to e.g. streamlining of implementation, communication and conflict management, laser‐scanning, flood mapping and geotextile. Spin‐off in the project area itself is also expected as the project is part of a broader cooperation between T‐CC and PO. Furthermore, the project also involves Haskoning Romania, which is involved in other projects in Romania as well.
2.2 Evolution of project components
What catches attention when analyzing the progress of the project are its delays. During the project course, the initial end date (31 December 2007) was postponed four times and eventually became 30 June 2009. This section elaborates further on the evolution of various project components, including various delays. For this, we distinguish between the following components:
I. Flood risk maps: development of maps using data sources and models II. Flood risk management plan: elaboration of a strategy for flood management
III. Guidelines and demonstration project: development of guidelines for the implementation of flood protection works and application of flood related measures at pilot‐scale
IV. Institutional analysis: assessment, analysis and recommendations related to the institutional framework
V. Supplementary activities: activities that were added in the beginning of the project in consultation with Partners for Water
Next subsections describe the evolution of each project component in more detail. These subsections are mainly based on project reports and progress reports. In total, the project resulted in thirteen project reports and six progress reports (this includes the inception report). Annex A provides an overview of all reports. All project reports are written in English, except for the institutional analysis, which is also translated in Romanian. The progress reports were prepared by by the project leader of H‐NL to keep Partners for Water about the project progress and therefore written in Dutch.
3
Teleorman Water Project (Southern Romania) ‐ Overijssel. Activities Programme 2008/Comprehensive Background Document, version 17 January 2007
2.2.1 I ‐ Flood risk mapping
The development of flood risk maps started with two activities that are quite innovative in Romania: (1) collection of (elevation) data through airborne laser‐scanning (LiDAR) and ortho‐photo’s; and (2) the processing of this data into a Digital Terrain Model. The collection of elevation data was delayed as problems were experienced in arranging required permits. Procedures just changed as a result of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007. As a result, flights were not undertaken in February but in May 2007. The development of images was also affected by some minor technical problems, related to the reading of a hard disk. After this data was available, a hydraulic model was prepared using flood hydrographs. The software SOBEK was used for this. For the hydrographs, historic data about precipitation and discharges is required. As this information was lacking, use was made of synthetic instead of ‘real’ flood hydrographs. The outcome of the model had to be combined with geographical, social and environmental to assess potential damages, which was used to create flood risk maps. Final products of component I are the flood risk maps themselves and guidelines on the development of flood risk maps. All flood risk mapping activities and related reports were completed in the beginning of 2008, which is one year later than foreseen in the work plan.2.2.2 II ‐ Flood Risk Management Plan
Based on the data gathered during various flood risk mapping activities, it would be possible to develop a flood management strategy. The initial plan was to develop an action plan with flood related measures, including public consultation and information rounds. This ambitious plan was downscaled as the project area (Calnistea river basin) was too large to realize such action plan given the project duration. An important reason is that the realization of such plans involves intensive consultation of local authorities and a thorough investigation of economic possibilities. What also played a role is that such plan should integrate both floods and droughts (interviews showed that droughts impose a more pressing problem than floods in the area). During the 2nd meeting of the Steering Committee (see also subsection 2.3.2), it was discussed that preparing such integrated plan goes beyond the scope of this project. In consultation with key stakeholders it was later decided to pay attention to possible options for flood management during a final seminar. Thus, instead of developing an integrated flood risk management plan, it was decided to limit the project to the preparation of an action plan for Botoroaga, Mosteni, Drganesti and Bujoreni communities, which are located in the Calnistea river basin. The plan included the development of water management scenario’s, with special attention to irrigation, a water balance and an environmental impact assessment. All relevant reports were completed in December 2007. The final seminar was organized in June 2008.
2.2.3 III – Guidelines and demonstration project
This project component consists of two elements: (1) the development of best practice guidelines for the selection, design, construction, operation and maintenance of flood protection works and flood related measures; and (2) application of flood related measures at pilot scale. The first elements resulted in a report concerning possible structural and non structural measures for flood reduction in Calnistea river basin. The report was completed in January 2008. The development of guidelines also included a familiarization visit of Romanian design institutes and/or universities and lectures on Dutch concepts and practices. How this has been implemented is unclear; the development of guidelines is not included in the progress reports.
One of the boundary conditions for the demonstration project was that it would make use of geotextile, to be supplied by a Dutch company. According to progress report 1, the idea to rehabilitate the damaged dam at Botoroaga, took shape already before the project started. For this, the damaged dam section would be replaced by a flood resistant overflow that allows for controlled flooding. Five possible options were reviewed for rehabilitation of the dam, but most of them did not fit within the available project budget. Two realistic options were explored furthering more
detail: (1) stabilization of the dam, this involves a minimum of repairs to make the dam flood resilient; this option could be complemented with (2) phased rehabilitation, this initially only involves making the dam flood resistant and full rehabilitation during a later stage. The Romanian stakeholders agreed that it was necessary to stabilize the dam and to use geotextile for this purpose. Following this decision, an engineering firm prepared two stabilization designs (with and without a geotube inside the dam). These designs were presented and analyzed during workshops in October 2007. Subsequently, the company prepared two detailed designs. The option that was preferred (for budgetary reasons) was to use geotextile for stabilization without any geotube. They completed the detailed design for stabilization in December 2007.
During 2007, the project leader raised two issues that might have constrained the demonstration project: ownership and timely arrangement of required authorizations (permits and licences). Ownership did not appear to impose problems as the dam was fully owned by the Local Council of Botoroaga. Timely arrangement of authorizations appeared to be more difficult. First, the Local Council had to apply for an urbanization certificate at the County Council (CC), which forms the basis for the application of licenses. As the project concerns a dam with a flood protection function, a special approval by a Committee for small dams was also required. After receiving this approval in February 2008, the Local Council could apply for a construction authorization.
When the project team was preparing for the actual construction of the dam, another issue arose: how to divide roles and responsibilities between project leader, owner and contractor? Various agreement options were studied. This resulted in the establishment of various contracts and agreements: an Implementation Agreement between H‐NL and Botoroaga Council; an Execution Contract between Botoroaga Council and the contractor; and a Supervision Contract between Botoroaga Council and a Romanian supervisor. Because of this, the completion date of the dam was postponed further. The contractor started the construction of works in spring 2009 and was able to complete works within the time and budget agreed upon by the Local Council and the contractor. Eventually, the project component took 30 months (from exploration in the beginning of 2007 until completion mid‐2009), instead of six months (initial plan). However, the dam was constructed within the available project budget. The dam was inaugurated on the 27th of June 2009.
2.2.4 IV ‐ Institutional analysis
During the preparation phase of this project, a researcher of the University of Twente undertook an institutional analysis (2006 – July 2007). This analysis pays attention to ‘floods prevention and crisis management’ and to ‘water services in rural and urban areas’. The latter was directly paid for by PO and is not related to this project. The part related to flood risk management is part of this project. However, this project component has always been quite separate from the rest of the project. Also because the time plan of the project differed from the time plan of other project components5.2.2.5 V ‐ Supplementary activities
As described in subsection 2.1.2 the project agreement between H‐NL and Partners for Water includes the formulation of several supplementary activities before August 2007. Initial ideas for activities were: (1) the organization of an international symposium; (2) project presentation for the Dutch water sector in cooperation with NWP; and (3) realization of flood related measures. Later, the third idea was rephrased as: (3) development of a water retention plan in the upper catchment; and (4) strengthening of the WMC with respect to the local development of risk maps and flood crisis management. All activities developed as planned, except that the budget allowed for the organization of one extra activity: two representatives of H‐NL and PO visited a workshop on transboundary cooperation in north‐eastern Romania in June 2008.
